Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
[...]
Courts don't issue advisory opinions. ...
Okay. For the sake of any possible benefit to anyone else who
cares, here's some stuff that I think is rather interesting
(and highly entertaining ;-) ) reading.
Note: follow the links/see the entire context.
A)
Ann W. Harrison wrote:
[...]
In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a
single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins.
To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to
Version 9 based on, extending and correcting the Guide
for Version 8.
To my uneducated
Err.
Eclipe.org legal FAQ
I meant http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html.
To: Ann W. Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: Initial Developer's Public License
Ann W. Harrison wrote:
[...]
In this example
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
To my uneducated understanding, that's similar to
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387954015
To me, this book is a mere aggregation of papers/works
with some glue (start up code, etc ;-) ). Aggregation
doesn't make this whole book [just like the
John Cowan wrote:
[...]
Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers
break up and redistribute the individual object files into
different regions of the executable.
Do you seriously believe that such details/linking analysis
[whether this or that linker redistributes the
Alexander Terekhov scripsit:
The resulting *compilation* is copyrightable. I think the
distinction compilation-vs-derivative is rather obvious.
Whereas I think the distinction is very subtle and full of borderline
cases, of which the native executable is just one.
First thing you learn when
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Cowan wrote:
[...]
Native executables aren't simply collections, however; linkers
break up and redistribute the individual object files into
different regions of the executable.
Do you seriously believe that such details/linking
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking
does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in
the link. ...
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I just wonder whether the time is right for some
Alexander Terekhov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
I think it is a pretty big stretch to say that static linking
does not produce a derivative work of the objects included in
the link. ...
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[...]
Who would benefit from taking such an action?
The Global Economy, of course.
For a free software organization, the upside is minimal,
and the downside is severe.
Really? I see nothing wrong if a free software organization
would have to adopt some EULA (to
With all those $$ legal funds to protect open source of lately,
I just wonder whether the time is right for some
vendor-neutral organization to bring the issue of linking
into court. It could
be a friendly, relatively-inexpensive summary judgment action,
oder? Just an idea.
Courts
Larry - For what it is worth, I think your analysis is exactly correct.
-Rod
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
Here are two examples that I think would not be allowed
under OSL which are allowed under IDPL.
A commercial database repair tool that uses the on disk
structure
I had described
A commercial database repair tool ...parts of the Firebird
database code.. with proprietary code
In this example, the commercial tool would probably be a
single executable and not a set of libraries or plug-ins.
To my understanding, that's similar to a User's Guide to
Version 9
13 matches
Mail list logo
